- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:34:00 +0100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Brad Hill <hillbrad@fb.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=cN_SA2xUN=n8=VNykvuBUFqgJGYKDaXHvEFdUNZWpxWg@mail.gmail.com>
"features which require a verifiably secure environment" is a mouthful, and, if anything, it's _less_ precise than "powerful", since it doesn't describe anything at all about the feature itself, instead focusing on the consequence of whatever properties the feature possesses. Is there a single adjective other than "powerful" that you'd find less judgemental? "risky" has the right connotations, but I suspect you'll like it even less than "powerful". :) -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.) On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > >> Seems clearly covered by "features which require a verifiably secure >> environment". >> > As per my other comment, I think language like this would be a much > better - more precise, less judgmental - than "powerful". > > Btw, I'm not sure WebCrypto is good to include as an example, since the > WebCrypto WG decided at TPAC not to require an authenticated origin > (although the bug is still marked as open). > > ...Mark > > > > >> I'd prefer doing it here, but I'm easy. If folks think the TAG should >> publish, I'm sure they'll be happy to do so. >> >> -mike >> On Nov 20, 2014 6:39 PM, "Brad Hill" <hillbrad@fb.com> wrote: >> >>> Do you think that "Powerful Features" belongs as a WebAppSec >>> deliverable – and should be added to our draft charter – or as a TAG >>> finding? >>> >>> From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com> >>> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 5:21 AM >>> To: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org> >>> Subject: "Requirements for Powerful Features" strawman. >>> Resent-From: <public-webappsec@w3.org> >>> Resent-Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM >>> >>> After talking a bit more with Anne and others, I'm coming around to >>> the opinion that we should break the "powerful features" bit out of MIX. In >>> particular, the notion that we need to explain what constitutes a "powerful >>> feature" pushes this right out of MIX in my mind; it was always tangential, >>> and if we need to define the category (and I agree that we do), then MIX >>> isn't the right place for it. >>> >>> I've slapped together a strawman at >>> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/ >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=HU3cThGizwgsko8%2BWBMXZg%3D%3D%0A&m=Uny70yXyxUKM6QderEO9EitGs%2Fm7TkCqYt%2BJnGFSFSo%3D%0A&s=0fcecb0074cfb96997dfb36ca84714e3b5a266f1480943ceb8cb7d410eec3d39> >>> with lots of TODO text. If folks agree that a separate document is >>> worthwhile, I'll remove the copy/pasted bits from MIX, clean up the >>> strawman, and issue a CfC to publish a FPWD. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- >>> Mike West <mkwst@google.com> >>> Google+: https://mkw.st/+ >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mkw.st/%2B&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=HU3cThGizwgsko8%2BWBMXZg%3D%3D%0A&m=Uny70yXyxUKM6QderEO9EitGs%2Fm7TkCqYt%2BJnGFSFSo%3D%0A&s=1dab00db52d0d48e6baf746f4ff9a01f6e3eced390c7139ced53ecba90e1c5f2>, Twitter: >>> @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 >>> >>> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany >>> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 >>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg >>> Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores >>> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. >>> Bleh.) >>> >>> >
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 10:34:49 UTC